Bangalore District Court
State By Magadi Road Police vs Surya.C on 29 September, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 29 th day of , September, 2020.
Present: SMT.R.SHARADA,B.A. M.L
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.100/2020
COMPLAINANT: State by Magadi Road Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Surya.C,
Son of Chakravarthi,
Aged 27 years,
Residing at: Present: No.A/14,
1st Cross, Gopalpura, Magadi Road,
Bangalore City.
Permanent:
Karimangalam Village, Chengam Tq,
Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu.
[By Advocate Sri.Vinaya.B.R ]
1. Date of commission of offence 8.1.2019
2. Date of report of occurrence 9.1.2019
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 11.11.2019.
Since the date of his arrest ie., from
11.11.2019 till date, the accused is in the
judicial custody.
2 Spl CC No.100/2020
4. Date of commencement of 28.8.2020
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 21.9.2020
6. Name of the complainant Smt.Devi.G., complainant as well as the mother of the
victim girl
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6
[As per charge-sheet] of POCSO Act 2012
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Magadi Road police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant who is none other than the mother of the victim girl had lodged a missing complaint with the complainant police stating that, his daughter/ victim girl who was aged 16 years that on 8.1.2019 went out of the house of her grandmother bearing No.40, 1st Cross, Gopalapura, Magadi Road, Bengaluru but did not turn up. Inspite of her search, the victim girl was not traced out. So,, the complainant suspected that the accused herein might have kidnapped her daughter/ victim girl. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.2/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the complainant police traced out the victim girl on 21.1.2019 and on 3 Spl CC No.100/2020 her enquiry, she revealed that, during the year 2016, her grandmother used to call the accused for fixing the gas cylinder to her house, even her grandmother had given some money to the father of the accused, so the victim girl and her elder sister used to go to the house of the accused for collecting the money, at that time, the victim girl and the accused came into contact with each other, and thereafter they started to love each other and they used to meet each other. The fact of love between the victim girl and the accused came to the knowledge of the family of the victim girl and they went to the house of the accused and had quarrel with him. Because of this incident, the victim girl and the accused used to speak over mobile phone. The family of the victim girl were also planning to get her married with another person, as the victim girl was not willing for this marriage, on 8.1.2019 in the morning at 11.30 A.M., she informed the said fact to the accused, and the accused told that they would elope and get married, so on the same day at night 7.45 P.M., she went to Majestic from her grandmother's house and the accused came there and they both went to Dharmasthala, on 9.1.2019 they reached Dharmasthala , as they did not get Thali, they did not get married, but, came back to Bangalore. On the same day ie., on 9.1.2019, in the afternoon, the accused took her to his junior aunt's house at Koyambedu, Tamil Nadu and stayed in the said house for 5 days ie., till 13.1.2019. During the said period, ie., on 13.1.2019, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. On the same day night ie., on 13.1.2019 at about 10 P.M., they both left to the house of the grandmother of the accused at Tiruvannamalli and reached there by 14.1.2019. The victim girl and the accused 4 Spl CC No.100/2020 stayed in the said house from 14.1.2019 till 21.1.2019 for a period of 8 days and during such period, the accused had sexual intercourse with her on 2 occasions. On 21.1.2019, the uncle of the accused came to Tiruvannamalai to the house of the grandmother of the accused and brought her to Bangalore to complainant police station, there her mother was there and the police conducted enquiry in the presence of her mother and later the complainant police sent her to Vani Vilas Hospital for medical examination and thereafter they sent her to Hostel at Chamarajapet. Again on 13.11.2019, the victim girl has given her statement before the complainant police that, during the month of April-2019, the mother and grandmother of the victim girl had come near the hostel where she was staying and brought her back to their home. As there was no liberty to stay in that house, again the victim girl telephoned to the accused to say with him. So, on 18.6.2019, in the evening the victim girl went out of the house by saying that she is going to medical store and came to Satellite Bus stop and from there she went to the native place of the accused i.e, Karimangalam, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu and stayed with him in the said house from 18.6.2019 till 11.11.2019. During such stay, the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her. On 11.11.2019, the younger brother of the accused was not feeling well, so, they came to Bengaluru to see him at this house at Gopalapura, at that time, the police came there and brought them to the police station. Hence, on the basis of the statement given by the victim girl, the Investigating Officer has inserted Sec.376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and continued with the investigation by arresting the accused, taking 5 Spl CC No.100/2020 him to remand and remanded him to the judicial custody. Since the date of his arrest ie., from 11.11.2019, till date the accused is in the judicial custody. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses, and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against this accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.100/2020.
3. As per the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge-sheet furnished to the accused. Accordingly charge is framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Accordingly, the trial is fixed, summons issued to the prosecution witnesses.
4. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as PWs-1 to 7 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 20. As per Sec.33(2) of POCSO Act 2012, the evidence of the victim girl has been recorded in the presence of her mother. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
6 Spl CC No.100/20201. Whether the prosecution proves that, CW25/ victim girl who was aged 16 years, being the daughter of CW1, and was staying with her mother, the accused knowing that CW25/ victim girl was minor in age, was in love with the victim girl and inspite of advise from CW9, on 8.1.2019, in the night at 8 P.M., the accused made CW25/ victim girl to come out of her house and took her from Bangalore to Karimangalam Village, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu State, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 366 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only took CW25/ victim girl to Karimangalam Village, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu State but, the accused kept her in the house of grandfather by name Balarm and from 13.1.2019 till 19.1.2019 the accused had committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl forcibly, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012?
3. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 and 2: In the Negative, Point No .3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 AND 2:- These Points are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
7 Spl CC No.100/20208. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case totally 7 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 7 and 20 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P20. Though the victim girl and her mother and her grandmother have not supported the case of the prosecution but the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the police officials have totally supported the case of the prosecution that, the victim girl and the accused were traced, they were produced before the Police Inspector, drawing up of mahazar, recording of the statement of the victim girl, sending the victim girl for medical examination. Even the doctor who has conducted physical examination of the victim girl has supported the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and she has according issued Provisional Report. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not contradicted by the counsel for the accused. Apart from that, according to Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is burden casted upon the accused to prove his innocence, but, he has failed to chose to examine any of the witness on his behalf, thereby, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused has to be convicted and he prays to convict the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
8 Spl CC No.100/20209. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim girl and her mother and her grandmother have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case when they were subjected to the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, these witnesses have denied all the suggestions put to them supporting their chief evidence. When all these material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, considering only the evidence of the Lady Doctor who physically examined the victim girl and the evidence of the police officials the court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Even the prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who has completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution before this court. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW1 is the mother of the victim girl, PW2/CW9 is the grandmother of the victim girl. PW3/CW25 is the victim girl herself. PW4/CW17 is the Woman PC who has deposed about tracing out the victim girl and the accused and producing them before the Police Inspector. PW5/CW21 is the PSI who has deposed about conducting spot panchanama as per Ex.P2. PW6/CW8 is the Lady Doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given Provisional Report as per Ex.P13.
9 Spl CC No.100/2020PW7/CW22 is the Woman PSI who is the preliminary Investigating Officer of this case. In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the Spot Panchanama. Ex.P3 is the statement of the victim girl. Ex.P4 is the further statement of the complainant . Ex.P5 is the statement of the grandmother of the victim girl. Ex.P6 is the Statement of the victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is the Report. Ex.P8 is the Dental Age Estimation of the victim girl. Ex.P9 is the Report given by the doctor. Ex.P10 is the FIR. Ex.P11 is the Report. Ex.P12 is the Requisition. Ex.P13 is the Provisional Report of the victim girl. Ex.P14 is the Spot Panchanama of the crime. Exs.P15 to P20 are the Photographs.
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the above stated prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by the complainant who is none other than the mother of the victim girl examined as PW1 by the prosecution. PW1 in her chief examination has deposed before the court that, CW25/ victim girl is her daughter. On 8.1.2019, her daughter/ victim girl went to Yoga class, but she did not turn up. So, she has given missing complaint to the police, her daughter was aged 16 years at the time of lodging the complaint. She has identified the signature on the Complaint, which is as per Ex.P1 and her signature is as per Ex.P1(a). Thereafter the police have drawn Mahazar. The said Mahazar is as per Ex.P2 and she has identified her signature on Ex.P2 as per Ex.P2(a). Her daughter had returned to home and she had seen her soon after she came 10 Spl CC No.100/2020 from the police station, after lodging the complaint. She has not given any statement before the police in the presence of her daughter as well as she has not given any kind of further statement. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross- examination, she has denied that, she doubted the accused that he has eloped her daughter on 8.1.2019. She has also denied that, she has read over the contents of the Complaint-Ex.P1 and thereafterwards she has put her signature on it. She has also denied that, on 9.1.2019, the police had come to her house and drawn Mahazar in between 3 to 4 P.M. She has also denied that, the police have traced out her daughter and the accused and brought both of them to the police station on the basis of the complaint given by her. She has also denied that, her daughter has given statement before the police making allegations against the accused that he had eloped her and also committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter repeatedly. She has also denied that, she was also present at the time of recording the statement of her daughter and she put her signature on it. She has denied that the contents of the Statement are known to her, but, she can identify her signature on it. The Statement given by the victim girl under Sec.161 of Cr..P.C is as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3 and the signature of the victim girl is as per Ex.P3(b). She has denied that, she has given further statement to the police which is as per Ex.P4. She has also denied the suggestion that, the accused had eloped her daughter and kept with him for certain days and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter. She has 11 Spl CC No.100/2020 also denied that, she know the contents of the complaint, Mahazar and Further statement which are as per Exs.P1, P2 and P4. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. She has also denied that, she is giving false evidence before this court.
12. PW2 is the grandmother of the victim girl. In her evidence before the court, she has stated that CW25 is her grand-daughter. On 8.1.2019, her grand-daughter went to Yoga class, but she did not turn up. So her daughter/ CW1 had given missing complaint to the police. Her grand-daughter was aged 16years at the time of lodging of the complaint. She has not given any statement before the police against the accused. This witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, this witness has denied that,her daughter/CW1 doubted the accused that he has eloped her grand-daughter on 8.1.2019. She has denied that, she has given the statement before the police which is as per Ex.P5. She has also denied that, her grand-daughter has given statement before the police making allegations against the accused that he has eloped the victim girl and also committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her grand-daughter. She has denied that, her grand-daughter had been eloped by the accused and kept with him for certain days and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. She has denied that, they have decided to celebrate the marriage of the victim girl with the accused because of that reason, she is deposing falsely in order to save the accused from being convicted and also to safeguard the future life of her 12 Spl CC No.100/2020 grand-daughter / victim girl. She has also denied that, she is giving false evidence before this court.
13. PW3 is the victim girl herself. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, CW1 is her mother and CW9 is her grand-mother. She do not know the accused and she has not seen him and she has not given any statement before the police and the police have not sent her to medical examination. The Medical officer has not collected any material objects from her . The police have taken her to the Learned Magistrate for recording the statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C, but she has not given any statement before the Learned Magistrate against the accused. The said Statement given by her before the Learned Magistrate is as per Ex.P6 and her signature is as per Ex.P6(a). The accused has not caused any trouble to her. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has made allegations against the accused in the statements given under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. She has also denied that, the medical officer on medical examination on her has taken the history from her and they have collected material objects from her. She has also denied that, on 8.1.2019, the accused eloped her along with him and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly. She has also denied that, she know the contents of the statements given by her which are as per Exs.P3 and P6, inspite of that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. She has also denied that, the elders of her family have decided to celebrate her marriage with the accused, for that 13 Spl CC No.100/2020 purpose, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. She has also denied that, she is giving false evidence before this court.
14. Now coming to the evidence of the doctor-PW6, she has deposed that, on 21.1.2019 at 11.15P.M., she has examined the victim girl who was aged about 16 years sent by Magadi Road police through Woman PC with the history of kidnap and rape. She enquired with the victim girl. After taking consent of the victim girl, she examined the victim girl. According to her remembrance, one attendant had accompanied along with the victim girl, as she has entered the same in her Medical Report. On physical examination of the victim girl, she found that the victim girl was developed according to her age and no external injuries were found on the body of the victim girl. On genital examination of the victim girl, there were no external injuries found, the hymen was not intact and other parts were Normal and she found white discharge. At the time of examination of the victim girl, she has collected the specimens viz., cervical swab, cervical smear, vaginal swab, vaginal smear and pubic hair. The same were chemically protected, packed and sealed and handed over to the concerned police for further needful. She can identify the said articles, if they are shown to her. In this regard, she has issued Provisional Report, which is as per Ex.P13 and her signature is as per Ex.P13(a). This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has not conducted any medical examination on the victim girl. She has also denied that, she has issued Ex.P13 in order to help the police. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely before this court.
14 Spl CC No.100/202015. Now coming to the evidence given by the police officials, I would like to take up the evidence given by PW4 who is Woman PC. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, on 11.11.2019, as per the instructions of the Police Inspector, herself, CWS-18 and 19, went to the house of the relative of the accused by name Karthik, situated at 1st Cross, Gopalapura and took the custody of the accused and the victim girl and produced them before the Police Inspector and in this regard CW19 has given Report and she has given Statement. Thereby this witness has performed her statutory duty. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused she has denied that, she has not taken the custody of the accused and the victim girl . She has also denied that, at the instance of her higher officers and the Investigating Officer she is deposing falsely before this court.
16. PW5 is the PSI. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, on 9.1.2019 he has received the case file of this case from CW20 and verified it. Thereafter he has conducted spot mahazar which is as per Ex.P2 and his signature is as per Ex.P2(b). He continued with the investigation by send the victim girl to the hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to CW21 for further investigation. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has not conducted mahazar nor he sent the victim girl to the hospital for medical examination. He has further denied that, in order to help the police, he is deposing falsely.
15 Spl CC No.100/202017. PW7 is the Woman PSI. In her evidence before the court, she has deposed that, on 21.1.2019, she has received the case file of this case from CW21 and verified it. On the same day, she has recorded the statement of the victim girl. Thereafter she continued with the investigation by conducting spot mahazar at Karimangalam Village, Chengam District, Tamil Nadu. Thereafter she has handed over the case file to CW24 for further investigation. Thereby, this witness has performed her statutory duty . This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has not conducted any investigation. She has also further denied that, she has created all the documents in the police station itself. She has also further denied that, at the instance of her higher officers, she is deposing falsely.
18. Considering the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of the victim girl, her mother and her grandmother, all these 3 witness have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused eloped the victim girl, took her to his native place at Tirvuannamalai and confined her in his grand-father's house from 13.1.2019 till 19.1.2019 days and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, knowing fully well that the victim girl was a minor. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused with the alleged crime. Though the evidence of the police officials are corroborative that, 16 Spl CC No.100/2020 the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the accused was arrested, but, they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because PWs-1 to 3 have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. Even the Lady doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given the Medical Report and opined that, the hymen of the victim girl was not in-tact, but this evidence also do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as the victim girl herself has not supported the prosecution case. The Investigation Officer of this case who has filed charge-sheet after collecting materials against this accused, has not been examined before this court which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Victim girl except identifying her signatures nothing has deposed against the accused to hold that the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. Even it has come in the evidence that, the elders of the family of the victim girl have decided to celebrate the marriage of the victim girl with the accused, so, the victim girl has not come forward to give the truth facts in this case. Thereby, I am of the view that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Of course, the presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 goes against the accused but, the prosecution has to prove its case by furnishing cogent evidence but it failed to do so, thereby, I hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
17 Spl CC No.100/202019. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, she has not suffered any sexual assault on her from the accused and further she deposed that, the elders of her family have decided to give her in marriage with the accused. Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
20. POINT NO.3:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 and 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec. 366 of IPC, Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of September, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.18 Spl CC No.100/2020
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Devi.G CW1 28.8.2020
PW2 Chinnamma CW9 28.8.2020
PW3 Victim girl CW25 28.8.2020
PW4 Lakshmi Padathare CW17 7.9.2020
PW5 Lakshminarasimharaju CW21 7.9.2020
PW6 Dr.Tejashwini CW8 21.9.2020
PW7 Sudha CW22 21.9.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 9.1.2019 lodged by PW1/
complainant/ mother of the victim girl to the complainant police Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 Panchanama Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) Signatures of PW5 Ex.P3 Statement of the victim girl/ PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW3/ victim girl Ex.P4 Further statement of PW1 Ex.P5 Statement of PW2 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6 Statement of the victim girl/ PW3 given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6(a) Signature of the victim girl /PW3 Ex.P7 Report given by CW4-Geetha, Woman PC for having taken PW3/ victim girl of this case to Vani Vilas Hospital for medical examination and collecting the articles belonging to the victim girl and handing over the same to PSI of the complainant police station [consent marked] Ex.P8 Dental Age Estimation of the victim girl/ PW3 [consent marked] Ex.P9 Report given by Dr.Rashmi KumarKarning in respect of the victim girl /PW3 [consent marked] 19 Spl CC No.100/2020 Ex.P10 FIR [consent marked] Ex.P11 Report given by PW4 for having traced out the victim girl and the accused of this case and producing them before the Police Inspector of the complainant police station Ex.P12 Requisition dated: 21.1.2019 given by PW5 to the Medical Officer, Vani Vilas Hospital, Bengaluru for conducting the physical examination of the victim girl/ PW3 Ex.P13 Provisional Report of the victim girl/ PW3 Ex.P14 Spot Panchanama of the crime Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW7 Exs.P15 Photographs to P20 Witness examined, documents, marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.20 Spl CC No.100/2020
29.9.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec. 366 of IPC, Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.21 Spl CC No.100/2020